Worst Regimental Performances

Sheltowee

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 4, 2021
Location
Kentucky
Just finished Hafendorfer's text on the Battle of Richmond Ky. Throughout the book, there are numerous recounts of how pathetic were the actions of the 7th Kentucky Cavalry (Metcalfes). Sparing details- but these troopers did not represent well, at all.

Trying to tread lightly here, as not to offend more sensitive members. But I am curious about examples of horrific performance by regiments in some particular battle. Any examples of poor conduct that really stand out?

I know we have the luxury of second-guessing men involved in life and death struggles- maybe not fair. Still, I am sure there are numerous examples of regiments that turned in disastrous efforts (or none at all). Were these units ever able to wipe away the tarnish, at some later battle? Please share...
 
The incidents of green troops being shoved into battle before being properly trained seems to be a not infrequent occurrence in the Army of the Potomac. That was the case with the Harper's Ferry Cowards in 1862 I believe.

It would seem that the practise of forming new regiments as opposed to reinforcing veteran outfits, (the Irish Brigade being an example of this), could have been responsible for this. Just an opinion of course.

John
 
Vote Here:
Question for the OP:

It seems we’re concentrating on regiments that broke and ran or displayed some sort of cowardice. Would a regiment that got mauled or destroyed through audacity or blunder for no tactical or strategic gain qualify as a poor performance even though there is no inkling of cowardice

The combat histories are eager to detail the exploits of heroic regiments who possessed excellent battle demeanor (ex. 20th Maine).

But, honestly- I'm more curious about units who had a long-standing reputation for cowardice and/or disobedience. Are there some notable outfits that just never performed to average expectations?

For my part, I am not talking about raw troops, poorly-led outfits, home guard militias, or just "hard luck" regiments. Surely there is some record of what could be called the "worst of the worst". Any noted examples?
 
Vote Here:
It's a legitimate inquiry and no need for you to "tread lightly". There were units that performed poorly - for all sorts of reasons, including lack of training, poor tactics, poor weapons, bad officers, etc. And even the good units had their share of shirkers, cowards and guys who simply could not be trusted. It's generally something you won't be able to corroborate in the OR, because nobody was likely to submit an AAR that admitted his unit bolted.
Great summary of what could go haywire. Brings to mind my 16th CT - at Antietam, at Fredricksburg, at New Bern, at Plymouth.
 
Vote Here:
The combat histories are eager to detail the exploits of heroic regiments who possessed excellent battle demeanor (ex. 20th Maine).

But, honestly- I'm more curious about units who had a long-standing reputation for cowardice and/or disobedience. Are there some notable outfits that just never performed to average expectations?

For my part, I am not talking about raw troops, poorly-led outfits, home guard militias, or just "hard luck" regiments. Surely there is some record of what could be called the "worst of the worst". Any noted examples?

I doubt you are going to find what you are looking for. In trying to research a family ancestor, I have consumed a lot of material (books, articles, etc) about the Army of Northern Virginia and I cannot recall ever seeing a particular regiment or particular brigade singled out as the worst of the worst. Poor performance in a particular battle or campaign is usually blamed on specific officers, not the men or the unit as a whole. Louisiana Tigers may have had a reputation for the worst behaviour off the battlefield, but that unit seemed to perform notably well in a number of tough fights.

The one case I can think of that might fit your criteria is the XI Corps of the Army of the Potomac. Poor performance at the successive battles of Chancellorsville and Gettysburg earned the XI Corps a bad reputation throughout the AOP. But this has been discussed by historians and analysts at great length, and I doubt you can conclude fairly that the German-American troops of the XI Corps were the worst of the worst.

A fun historical trivia game on the net is naming the worst generals of the Civil War. You might look there for some clues to finding what you are looking for.
 
Vote Here:
If we're also talking at brigade or at least "aggregated" types of comments, then I also recall some disparaging remarks were made about East Tennessee regiments at Big Black River Bridge, and then later having those same units condemned at being the first to break at Missionary Ridge. I can't recall the specifics unfortunately.
This was discussed at length in The Last Confederate General, a biography of its brigade commander. The real "trouble" with the regiments was that they consisted entirely of conscripted East Tennessee Unionists who obviously had NO inclination to fight, especially for the Confederacy!
 
Vote Here:
This was discussed at length in The Last Confederate General, a biography of its brigade commander. The real "trouble" with the regiments was that they consisted entirely of conscripted East Tennessee Unionists who obviously had NO inclination to fight, especially for the Confederacy!
It sounds very similar to something I read about Brigadier-General James Holt Clanton's Alabama brigade:

"Because the targeted counties had become so denuded of manpower during the first two years of the war, the pool from which Clanton had to recruit was so limited that he made many concessions and inducements which resulted in a brigade that, in the words of Department of the Gulf Commander Major-General DABNEY, were comprised primarily of '... men who have entered the army very reluctantly.' The problem especially applied to the infantry units, where many of the men were paid substitutes, impressed conscripts, foreigners, men who had previously been exempt from service - in general, men from the "poorer classes" who felt they had very little to fight for. ...

"In early December 1863, the dubious quality of the recruits in the brigade's infantry regiments came back to haunt CLANTON, and permanently changed the mission of all regiments in the brigade. 60 of 300 men - nearly all from the two infantry regiments - laid down their arms while on picket duty near Gonzales (about 15 miles from Pensacola), and refused to fight as part of an orchestrated plan by the 'Peace Society', a secret organization with special identifying handshakes and signals. The so-called 'Peace Men' had earlier roots among officers and enlisted men in units of BRAGG's Army of Tennessee, especially in East Tennessee. CLANTON addressed the problem swiftly and decisively. The military courts that tried the mutineers completely vindicated CLANTON, and the cavalry regiments do not appear to have been involved. However, the reputation of the entire brigade among senior C.S.A. officers was permanently stained, and all regiments remained suspect as to their reliability despite their subsequent peformance [sic] on the battlefield." (source)
 
Vote Here:
The military courts that tried the mutineers completely vindicated CLANTON,
I'm wondering what sort of punishment the court handed out. Sixty men would be a lot to hang all at once.

As an aside, I don't recall ever reading that a regiment as a whole was ever punished for poor performance. Mostly blame fell on the officers and shame on the soldiers.
 
Vote Here:
16th Connecticut. Their first action at Antietam ends in disaster. Then they get captured essentially en mass at Plymouth.

A bit unfair, I think, to the men of the 16th Connecticut. More bad luck than worst of the worst.

I've made a study of the Confederate North Carolina Third Infantry Regiment and they had a similar experience without being singled out for bad performance. The regiment was mauled and driven from the field at Antietam, shot up badly in the failed assault on Culp's Hill at Gettysburg, and then captured en masse at Spotsylvania. In addition, they suffered the indignity of having 10 members convicted of murder/desertion and shot to death in the largest public execution of its own soldiers in ANV history. There were also some other smaller missteps and omissions counted against the 3rd NC.

If the 16th Connecticut is the worst of the worse in the AOP, then the 3rd NC is the worst of the worst of the worst in the ANV. But such a judgement would be equally unfair to both, I'd say.
 
Last edited:
Vote Here:
The incidents of green troops being shoved into battle before being properly trained seems to be a not infrequent occurrence in the Army of the Potomac. That was the case with the Harper's Ferry Cowards in 1862 I believe.

It would seem that the practise of forming new regiments as opposed to reinforcing veteran outfits, (the Irish Brigade being an example of this), could have been responsible for this. Just an opinion of course.

John
That's a good point. Obviously, integrating rookies into units where they are in the company of veterans is a smart practice. It works in the military and in team sports, not to mention business organizations.
 
Vote Here:
I'm wondering what sort of punishment the court handed out. Sixty men would be a lot to hang all at once.

As an aside, I don't recall ever reading that a regiment as a whole was ever punished for poor performance. Mostly blame fell on the officers and shame on the soldiers.
I think that actually is the right result. "Poor performance" is not a military "offense" and, as this thread demonstrates, most of the time it's due in large part or entirely to other factors outside the soldiers' control. Things like mutiny and disobedience of orders, on the other hand, are offenses. Factors outside the soldiers' control may mitigate the punishment but don't eliminate the violation. The "punishment" for poor performance that is due to the troops themselves would involve removing the unit from the front lines or breaking it up.
 
Vote Here:
Vote Here:
I was not able to reach this site, unfortunately. Don't know if it would help if you could resend the link?
Thanks.

So sorry, but this link is still connecting on my lap-top equipment:


Maybe you can connect by travelling on your own through the London (UK) Civil War Round Table site:


Good luck!
 
Vote Here:
So sorry, but this link is still connecting on my lap-top equipment:


Maybe you can connect by travelling on your own through the London (UK) Civil War Round Table site:


Good luck!
That worked. Thanks again.
 
Vote Here:
Just finished Hafendorfer's text on the Battle of Richmond Ky. Throughout the book, there are numerous recounts of how pathetic were the actions of the 7th Kentucky Cavalry (Metcalfes). Sparing details- but these troopers did not represent well, at all.

Trying to tread lightly here, as not to offend more sensitive members. But I am curious about examples of horrific performance by regiments in some particular battle. Any examples of poor conduct that really stand out?

I know we have the luxury of second-guessing men involved in life and death struggles- maybe not fair. Still, I am sure there are numerous examples of regiments that turned in disastrous efforts (or none at all). Were these units ever able to wipe away the tarnish, at some later battle? Please share...
The 60th, 61st, and 62nd Tennessee at Black River Bridge on May 17, 1863, during the Vicksburg Campaign. This same Brigade was commended for their part in the fight at Chickasaw Bayou the previous December, where they were literally marched to the battle after disembarking from the trains. The Brigade was made up entirely of East Tennesseans. One of two Confederate Brigades at Vicksburg from the heavily Union sympathetic end of the Volunteer State. I don't necessarily believe the disaster happened because most were really Union men. True Union men from East Tennessee were in Kentucky already organizing and training regiments for the Union Army or hiding out in the mountains trying to get to those places. They had to put their lives on the line to get there. I believe there were several reasons for the disaster at Big Black, but not because they secretly wanted to rejoin the Union. They rejoined the Union alright, at places like Fort Deleware, Johnson's Island, Camp Douglass, Camp Morton, and Rock Island, so many of them never left!
 
Last edited:
Vote Here:
The following is taken from Personal Recollections and Civil War Diary 1864, Lemeul A. Abbott regarding his regiment's "christening fire" at the Battle of Locust Grove, November 27, 1863 and seems to sum up (for me) much of what has been discussed in this thread:

Here the men have been ordered to advance and are standing in front of the Confederate works, taking fire...

.....as unwisely no order had been given to fire in Company B, and the men being inexperienced and supposing they had got to await orders to do so as at drill, the line commenced to waver, when Colonel Albert B. Jewett approached from the rear and cried out loudly, among other things : "Company B, what's the matter?" or to that effect.....
.....When forming, too, for the assault, Lieut. Ezra Stetson who was in command of Company B stood in front of it, and supposing he was going to advance in that position, I also took my position in front of the Company expecting to advance in the same way, but was finally ordered just before advancing, by Stetson, to go to the right of the front rank in line, where I supposed in my ignorance of warfare, although a fair tactician, I had got to remain and did until the line broke in the second advance, Stetson meantime being a novice in fighting men in battle, going to the rear of the Company. As it may be convenient for the good of the service for some to cite this battle, together with others, to Congressmen as an important reason why men with no experience in battle should never be placed in high position to command men especially in the regular army where it can generally be avoided, I feel constrained to state that the derisive smile and expression on the men's faces, etc., as I turned to obey Stetson's order plainly showed that they disapproved of any such arrangement.....

pages 248-249
 
Vote Here:
East Tennessee: A dear friend of mine, Doug Taylor, studied extensively about the Confederates of East Tennessee. He was from the Morristown area and was the Dean of Students at Carson Newman.

Doug wrote several papers and had a book published about General Vaughan and "the boys" of East Tennessee who as he would say were stranded from the Confederacy. I will do my best to find that book and or any of the papers.

I have included a photo of his grave and please note the flags. Doug was an Army veteran but he was buried with full honors by his SCV Camp members. I want to also add that he was buried in his butternut suit with Dixie played after Taps.
Regards
David
 
Vote Here:
East Tennessee: A dear friend of mine, Doug Taylor, studied extensively about the Confederates of East Tennessee. He was from the Morristown area and was the Dean of Students at Carson Newman.

Doug wrote several papers and had a book published about General Vaughan and "the boys" of East Tennessee who as he would say were stranded from the Confederacy. I will do my best to find that book and or any of the papers.

I have included a photo of his grave and please note the flags. Doug was an Army veteran but he was buried with full honors by his SCV Camp members. I want to also add that he was buried in his butternut suit with Dixie played after Taps.

Regards
David

91893864_135060757193.jpg
 
Vote Here:
East Tennessee: A dear friend of mine, Doug Taylor, studied extensively about the Confederates of East Tennessee. He was from the Morristown area and was the Dean of Students at Carson Newman.

Doug wrote several papers and had a book published about General Vaughan and "the boys" of East Tennessee who as he would say were stranded from the Confederacy. I will do my best to find that book and or any of the papers.

I have included a photo of his grave and please note the flags. Doug was an Army veteran but he was buried with full honors by his SCV Camp members. I want to also add that he was buried in his butternut suit with Dixie played after Taps.

Regards
David

View attachment 421529
I have his book, "A Fit Representation of Pandemonium, East Tennessee Confederate Soldiers In The Campaign For Vicksburg" Would have loved to have met him. Sadly left here too soon!


The 31st Tennessee was part of the A.W. Renolds Brigade. The second East Tennessee Brigade at Vicksburg. They fought at Champion Hill on May 16.
 
Last edited:
Vote Here:
Back
Top